'The issue which has swept down centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later, is The People -v- The Banks'

Monday, 16 May 2016

#FINANCIALSERVICES ARMAGEDDON!!!!!!!!

Exclusive, explosive reports from the patriot
Joint U.S.-French Intelligence Task Force, operating on American soil for over 200 years
TOM HENEGHAN INTELLIGENCE BRIEFINGS
ALL Patriot Americans MUST know with sources inside
American/European intelligence agencies and INTERPOL
reporting what is really going on behind the scenes of the
corporate-controlled, fascist, extortion-friendly
propaganda U.S. media's massive deceptions

Protect and defend your Constitution Bill of Rights,
the Supreme Law of the United States
http://www.tomheneghanbriefings.com/
https://twitter.com/Tom_Heneghan

Sunday May 15, 2016

Financial Armageddon Beckons!

by Tom Henegan, International Intelligence Expert

UNITED States of America - At this hour $27.5 TRILLION of STOLEN U.S.-French Treasury funds are still missing from the U.S. and French Treasuries that had been illegally converted into worthless ass backwards foreign currency derivatives with the major culprits being the Central Bank of Japan, the Royal Bank of Scotland, and the Bush-Clinton Nazi-Khazar German Deutsche Bank.

Stay tuned, expect MAJOR financial and geopolitical blow back to begin imminently.

John Hively's Blog: News and Analysis of the War Against the Middle Class
By The World's Most Accurate Economic Forecaster Since 1989

Below is letter from US Congressman Alan Grayson. It’s a breakdown of the money the Federal Reserve gave out to save rich investors from their own incompetence. Everybody assumes the Federal Reserve was out to save the banks. That’s not true. The Fed was out to save wealthy investors. If they hadn’t, a lot of rich people would be applying for jobs at Seven-Eleven. A ton of political campaign money would have dried up. A lot of money that corrupts the political system would be gone. A ton of corruption would have died. Goldman Sachs would’ve disappeared into bankruptcy. So while saving rich investors from their own stupidity, the Fed was also ensuring the continued corruption of the corporate wing of the supreme court, congress and the presidency.

There is one other matter I disagree with Congressman Grayson about in regard to the Fed’s actions. The Fed says most of the money it lent out has been paid back. That may not be true. If fact, it’s probably not true. The Fed may, or most likely, have simply cooked its own books to make it appear so. Maybe that’s why corporate profits are at record highs during this period of suppressed demand. How could they have record profits? How could they have paid back $26 trillion in loans in such a short time? That’s almost twice the domestic product of the entire United States. There’s only one answer. It’s not possible. They didn’t pay the money back, at least not most of it. The loans that were not paid back are being used to increase corporate earnings. The higher profits are going toward higher dividends and enhanced share prices for the wealthy. That makes the loans another conduit of unearned income for wealthy investors, as well as another pipeline for government corruption. Corruption is rampant, so don’t think the Fed is immune from it, since it saved the corrupters of Democracy, and likely made them richer in the process.

There’s something significantly more to this scandal and it goes something like this. But first, we need a definition.

A credit default swap is an insurance policy, usually provided on bonds backed by home mortgages. According to some sources, there were $60+ trillion worth of these insurance policies at the beginning of the housing collapse in the summer of 2006.

You didn’t need to own any of these bonds to insure them. It’s the same as being able to insure your neighbor’s house, without their knowledge, even if you don’t know the owner. Needless to say, you’d have a fair degree of incentive to burn your neighbor’s house down.

Institutions such as Goldman Sachs and a ton of unregulated investment firms called hedge funds took out insurance policies on mortgage backed bonds. These people were betting the market would collapse. They were right, even though some of them were selling the bonds up to the housing collapse and even a little after it began, even while telling hapless and really stupid (but wealthy) investors what wonderful investments the bonds were.

This leads me to believe that trillions of those dollars of unrepaid Federal Reserve loans went toward reimbursing the holders of the credit default swaps, which may be why all of those Goldman Sachs and Citicorp executives and hedge fund managers have been getting wonderful bonuses during the economic collapse they helped to craft.

Think about it. The government bailed out the insurance company AIG because of the billions of dollars of mortgage backed bonds it had insured, and that subsequently become worthless when the housing market melted down.

Let’s be clear about one thing. The government didn’t bail out AIG, although they technically did. The government actually bailed out the rich investors by bailing out AIG. These were the foolish folks that had bet that the mortgage-backed-bond market would collapse, and they’d get rich when their insurance policies (credit default swaps) bore fruit. And then came the fat surprise!

The entire insurance industry of planet Earth couldn’t possibly pay out $60+ trillion to those who’d bet on the housing market collapse. That means a bunch of rich fat cats made a bet on a market (credit default swaps) that could not sustain itself. They lost their shirts because they were dumber than a cat’s fart. Unless, of course, they expected the Fed to save their worthless hides.

The Fed’s rescue was most likely negotiated by Fed officials and Wall Street executives in one or more secret meetings. It’s possible executives simply begged Bernanke for financial salvation and he relented, but that’s unlikely.

Either way, the Fed stepped in to save their extraordinarily wealthy friends, like Goldman Sachs, their investors and numerous hedge funds.

In other words, if you were rich and dumb and placed your money in a market that was doomed to collapse, like the credit default swap market, you should have lost all of the premiums that you paid out. Coincidentally, although sizable (probably exceeding a trillion dollars), the money paid out in premiums represented only a fraction of the $60 trillion sized market.

The Federal Reserve doesn’t serve the common people or the nation. The officials at the Fed have only one thing in mind; to serve the wealthy people that control them.

So let me restate this succinctly: The Fed has paid out trillions of dollars in alleged loans and claimed they were paid back when it was impossible to have done so. The recipients of the money, the richest of people and investment companies that control the world’s most powerful government, also had to have cooked their books in order to make it appear they paid the money back.

That means they couldn’t have paid any taxes on trillions of dollars of free income provided by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Ben Bernanke is part of this crime wave. We’re also talking about hedge fund managers, investors of all stripes and sizes, basically, a ton of rich people. Obama may have even known of this crime. Why else would the Department of Justice be totally blind to this issue? Where is the investigation? Even if we had one, the crimes would be white washed in an ocean of corruption.

But then there’s the fear factor. If common people even knew there was an investigation, the demands for justice would be massive since most people now know or suspect how corrupt the financial sector and the government are, and how much and how tightly they are entwined.

I’m no attorney, but I can kind of guess what crimes have been committed, at least some of them. How about tax evasion? How about Accessory to Tax Evasion? How about obstruction of justice? Racketeering? Money laundering? And probably lots more. If you’re rich, you own enough politicians and Supreme Court and other justices that no charges will ever be brought against you.

The folks at http://criminal.laws.com/rico define racketeering this way, “Racketeering is classified as a crime that takes place through or while undertaking an illegal business or commercial venture. The activity of Racketeering is neither specific to solely illegal nor legal business operations. A wide array of the types of Racketeering exists.”

Goldman Sachs and other banks are businesses. So are hedge funds. So racketeering applies.

Criminal.laws.com also defines money laundering as “a financially-based criminal act that is employed in order to purposely conceal, misrepresent, and disguise all applicable nature or details with regard to financial income in the form of monies. Money Laundering can be instituted in order to attempt to hide the source of generation of a particular flow of income or to mask the process of the spending of monies. Furthermore, Money Laundering can be utilized in order to mislead investigations involved in the determination of the particular spending pattern or trend with regard to an individual or entity. While Money Laundering is not specific to commercial activity, it most commonly takes place within the scope of business activity.”

Money laundering clearly applies and it should be obvious to anybody with a second grade education.

Ben Bernanke is up to his neck in these crimes. Perhaps more realistically, he buried himself completely in it.

Crimes have been committed on a massive scale, but our government is totally corrupted by big money, and that’s especially true of the corporate wing of the Supreme Court. So don’t expect anything to happen soon. Join the Occupy Movement. Get Busy. Get Politically active if you want to see justice served, if you want to see our government washed clean of corruption.

Anyway, the link below takes a look at what President Obama may or may not have known about the $26 trillion and how his knowledge impacted one of the policies he proposed. The link below that is important information about the Federal Reserve. Enhancing corporate profits was not the only thing done with the unrepaid money; the third link below goes into that issue. Much of the money went to pay off rich people holding credit default swaps.

Congressman Grayson’s letter is below the third link.

The enormous implications of the bailout to the 99 percent. Click here for an analysis of what Obama may have known about the $26 trillion

Who Holds the Federal Reserve Responsible for Its Actions?

Why Isn’t Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in Prison for Life?

Dear John,

I think it’s fair to say that Congressman Ron Paul and I are the parents of the GAO’s audit of the Federal Reserve. And I say that knowing full well that Dr. Paul has somewhat complicated views regarding gay marriage.

Anyway, one of our love children is a massive 251-page GAO report technocratically entitled “Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Policies and Processes for Managing Emergency Assistance.” It is almost as weighty as that 13-lb. baby born in Germany last week, named Jihad. It also is the first independent audit of the Federal Reserve in the Fed’s 99-year history.

Feel free to take a look at it yourself, it’s right here. It documents Wall Street bailouts by the Fed that dwarf the $700 billion TARP, and everything else you’ve heard about.

I wouldn’t want anyone to think that I’m dramatizing or amplifying what this GAO report says, so I’m just going to list some of my favorite parts, by page number.

Page 131 – The total lending for the Fed’s “broad-based emergency programs” was $16,115,000,000,000. That’s right, more than $16 trillion. The four largest recipients, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch and Bank of America, received more than a trillion dollars each. The 5th largest recipient was Barclays PLC. The 8th was the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, PLC. The 9th was Deutsche Bank AG. The 10th was UBS AG. These four institutions each got between a quarter of a trillion and a trillion dollars. None of them is an American bank.

Pages 133 & 137 – Some of these “broad-based emergency program” loans were long-term, and some were short-term. But the “term-adjusted borrowing” was equivalent to a total of $1,139,000,000,000 more than one year. That’s more than $1 trillion out the door. Lending for these programs in fact peaked at more than $1 trillion.

Pages 135 & 196 – Sixty percent of the $738 billion “Commercial Paper Funding Facility” went to the subsidiaries of foreign banks. 36% of the $71 billion Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility also went to subsidiaries of foreign banks.

Page 205 – Separate and apart from these “broad-based emergency program” loans were another $10,057,000,000,000 in “currency swaps.” In the “currency swaps,” the Fed handed dollars to foreign central banks, no strings attached, to fund bailouts in other countries. The Fed’s only “collateral” was a corresponding amount of foreign currency, which never left the Fed’s books (even to be deposited to earn interest), plus a promise to repay. But the Fed agreed to give back the foreign currency at the original exchange rate, even if the foreign currency appreciated in value during the period of the swap. These currency swaps and the “broad-based emergency program” loans, together, totaled more than $26 trillion. That’s almost $100,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. That’s an amount equal to more than seven years of federal spending — on the military, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the debt, and everything else. And around twice American’s total GNP.

Page 201 – Here again, these “swaps” were of varying length, but on Dec. 4, 2008, there were $588,000,000,000 outstanding. That’s almost $2,000 for every American. All sent to foreign countries. That’s more than twenty times as much as our foreign aid budget.

Page 129 – In October 2008, the Fed gave $60,000,000,000 to the Swiss National Bank with the specific understanding that the money would be used to bail out UBS, a Swiss bank. Not an American bank. A Swiss bank.

Pages 3 & 4 – In addition to the “broad-based programs,” and in addition to the “currency swaps,” there have been hundreds of billions of dollars in Fed loans called “assistance to individual institutions.” This has included Bear Stearns, AIG, Citigroup, Bank of America, and “some primary dealers.” The Fed decided unilaterally who received this “assistance,” and who didn’t.

Pages 101 & 173 – You may have heard somewhere that these were riskless transactions, where the Fed always had enough collateral to avoid losses. Not true. The “Maiden Lane I” bailout fund was in the hole for almost two years.

Page 4 – You also may have heard somewhere that all this money was paid back. Not true. The GAO lists five Fed bailout programs that still have amounts outstanding, including $909,000,000,000 (just under a trillion dollars) for the Fed’s Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities Purchase Program alone. That’s almost $3,000 for every American.

Page 126 – In contemporaneous documents, the Fed apparently did not even take a stab at explaining why it helped some banks (like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley) and not others. After the fact, the Fed referred vaguely to “strains in the financial markets,” “transitional credit,” and the Fed’s all-time favorite rationale for everything it does, “increasing liquidity.”

81 different places in the GAO report – The Fed applied nothing even resembling a consistent policy toward valuing the assets that it acquired. Sometimes it asked its counterparty to take a “haircut” (discount), sometimes it didn’t. Having read the whole report, I see no rhyme or reason to those decisions, with billions upon billions of dollars at stake.

Page 2 – As massive as these enumerated Fed bailouts were, there were yet more. The GAO did not even endeavor to analyze the Fed’s discount window lending, or its single-tranche term repurchase agreements.

Pages 13 & 14 – And the Fed wasn’t the only one bailing out Wall Street, of course. On top of what the Fed did, there was the $700,000,000,000 TARP program authorized by Congress (which I voted against). The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) also provided a federal guarantee for $600,000,000,000 in bonds issued by Wall Street.

There is one thing that I’d like to add to this, which isn’t in the GAO’s report. All this is something new, very new. For the first 96 years of the Fed’s existence, the Fed’s primary market activities were to buy or sell U.S. Treasury bonds (to change the money supply), and to lend at the “discount window.” Neither of these activities permitted the Fed to play favorites. But the programs that the GAO audited are fundamentally different. They allowed the Fed to choose winners and losers.

So what does all this mean? Here are some short observations:

(1) In the case of TARP, at least The People’s representatives got a vote. In the case of the Fed’s bailouts, which were roughly 20 times as substantial, there was never any vote. Unelected functionaries, with all sorts of ties to Wall Street, handed out trillions of dollars to Wall Street. That’s not how a democracy should function, or even can function.

(2) The notion that this was all without risk, just because the Fed can keep printing money, is both laughable and cryable (if that were a word). Leaving aside the example of Germany’s hyperinflation in 1923, we have the more recent examples of Iceland (75% of GNP gone when the central bank took over three failed banks) and Ireland (100% of GNP gone when the central bank tried to rescue property firms).

(3) In the same way that American troops cannot act as police officers for the world, our central bank cannot act as piggy bank for the world. If the European Central Bank wants to bail out UBS, fine. But there is no reason why our money should be involved in that.

(4) For the Fed to pick and choose among aid recipients, and then pick and choose who takes a “haircut” and who doesn’t, is both corporate welfare and socialism. The Fed is a central bank, not a barber shop.

(5) The main, if not the sole, qualification for getting help from the Fed was to have lost huge amounts of money. The Fed bailouts rewarded failure, and penalized success. (If you don’t believe me, ask Jamie Dimon at JP Morgan.) The Fed helped the losers to squander and destroy even more capital.

(6) During all the time that the Fed was stuffing money into the pockets of failed banks, many Americans couldn’t borrow a dime for a home, a car, or anything else. If the Fed had extended $26 trillion in credit to the American people instead of Wall Street, would there be 24 million Americans today who can’t find a full-time job?

In the 15th century moneylender’s had their benches broken when they run out of their hard-earned cash on other people’s backs and hence the origin of ‘bankruptcy’. The broken benches, smashed stopped them starting up business again. Back then insolvency was public and it was irrevocable. Although, like everything where there’s a will, there’s a way and the broken benchers probably still got back into their moneylending line of business to fleece a few more before they went down the tubes again. That was the beginning of when banks started to become too big to fail.

Just recently France got another telling off from Moody’s and ended up beng downgraded. While the rest of Europe has managed to drag (almost) itself out of recession and see some sort of growth, France is still in the doldrums and suffering for its lack of initiative and lack of stimulus. It was downgraded from Aa2 to Aa1, despite the outlook being stable. The report from Moody’s stated that the problems will continue since France is not addressing the problems at the root of the matter, resulting in structural unemployment as well as weak profits for companies and losses in global markets. The report stated: “The current economic recovery in France has already proven to be significantly slower — and Moody’s believes that it will remain so — compared with the recoveries observed over the past few decades. In part, this is due to the erosion of competitiveness and loss of growth potential following the global financial crisis. It is becoming increasingly clear, in the rating agency’s view, that these problems will continue to constrain growth long after the cyclical recovery from the crisis is completed. In Moody’s opinion, France’s potential annual growth rate is at most 1.5% over the medium term. France faces material economic challenges, such as a high rate of structural unemployment, relatively weak corporate profit margins, and a loss of global export market share that have their roots in long-standing rigidities in its labour and product markets.”

The rating attributed to France is expected to remain as is for the next 12 to 18 months, which means that there will be no improvement in the French economy for another 2 years probably.

But, France is nowhere near as bad as some countries. There are some that are almost on the verge of implosion and they have soaring debts. What will happen to them and who are they?

Most In-Debt Countries in the world on the edge of Insolvency

7. Belarus

The outlook for this country is negative according to Moody’s and government debt for 2015 stands at 39.6% of GDP. The credit rating for Belarus is Caa1. The last-dictator of Europe, President Alexander Lukashenko, who has been in power for over 20 years, now refuses to privatize national industries still in good-old Communist style. It has suffered greatly due to the sanctions imposed upon Russia as its economy is closely linked to the Russian Federation’s. Its currency has also suffered and is now linked and indexed to the Russian ruble (40%), the US dollar (30% and the euro (30%).

6. Argentina

Argentina’s outlook is also negative and the credit rating currently stands at Caa1, with government debt at 49.5% of GDP for 2015. The inflation rate in the late 1980s stood at 12,000% and they are still suffering the consequences of the terrible years that set them back then. In 2001, the government defaulted on $100 billion in debt when it was unable to see its exports rise because it had pegged its currency to the US dollar. The country defaulted again in 2014 and in the up-coming elections all candidates are looking to see a rise in foreign investment to get themselves out of trouble.

5. Jamaica

This country has a credit rating that stands at Caa2 and 132.8% of government debt as a percentage of GDP (2015). GDP per capita currently stands at $8,784 also. The country has a positive outlook since its credit rating recently went from Caa3 to Caa2. There is greater confidence in the economy due to the simplification of tax returns and the implementation of a new minimum business tax.

4. Belize

This country has an outlook that is stable and a rating of Caa2. Government debt this year stands at 75.7% of GDP and GDP per capita is $8,321. Its GDP is currently at $1.8 billion. In 2012, the country defaulted on the repayment of $23 million, after having run up debts to the tune of $540 million.

3. Venezuela

This country has a credit rating of Caa3 and its outlook is stable today with government debt at 39.6% of GDP. Per capita GDP stands at $16,346. Fuel prices have had an adverse effect on this country’s economy and caused increases in debt, since nearly 94% of earnings are from oil today for this country.

2. Greece

Government debt here stands at 172.7% of GDP (2015) and per capita GDP is $26,773. The rating is currently under review for Moody’s and the present credit rating stands at Caa3. Greece defaulted on the repayment of $138 billion of its bailouts of 240 billion euros in 2012. The country has one of the highest unemployment rates in the history of the world sometimes hitting 25% (and even 60% for youth employment). What changes will take place with the election of the left-wing party Syriza and Prime Minister Tsipras, then his resignation and now his stunning victory and regaining of power in a second election within eight months?

1. Ukraine

Ukraine has a credit rating of Ca and a negative outlook. Its government debt stands at 94.1% of GDP ad its per capita GDP amounts to $8,278 today. This country has the worst credit rating of all country in the world and it is the second lowest credit rating possible. The likelihood of default stands at 100% according to Moody’s.

There are only seven countries in the world with a credit rating that is worse than C in the world today. These are the seven countries that will go bankrupt if they don’t find a solution to their problems.

The Ancient Greeks had it off to a tee. Bankruptcy didn’t even exist as a term and when a man ended up falling into debt then it was his wife, children and servants that ended up in debt slavery. They would have to work and were forced into physical labor in order for his debt to be paid back. It was only in Athens that the families of debtors were saved by the Laws of Solon, forbidding an Athenian from being enslaved. But, it was ok to enslave foreigners or people who were not from Athens. Sometimes that slavery would last for the lifetime of the wife and children, given to the creditor since the debtor had made a mistake. What’s changed these days when someone goes bankrupt? It’s just someone else that ends up paying for it all rather than the person or the institution that did the dirty deeds in the first place. When the banks go bankrupt, we don’t break their benches any more. We just tell them not to worry and that they will get a good old-fashioned bailing out from the Federal Reserve. When the banks lend too much because they want to make a killing, we let them do it again because they were visibly having so much fun doing so.

Even before capital markets took off internationally, countries were going bankrupt and Spain, France, Portugal and Prussia regularly went bankrupt because their eyes were bigger than their bellies with regard to world expansion. They never had the money, but they just ran into debt and went bankrupt. Back then, they never concealed it. Today, things are different. Bankruptcy fraud is the order of the day with asset concealment or destruction of documents, conflict of interest ad redistribution arrangements as well as falsification.

Once upon a time in the not-too-distant past people ended up going to a debtors’ prison for falling into debt. Back in the 19th century it was a common way to deal with those that owed too much money to others; forced into labor to pay off what they owed to their creditors. Of course, at the same time, the wife and children fell into poverty because there was no safety net to fall back on. When released from prison, they were forced in debt bondage and became indenture servants or serfs.

How many of the bankers should end up as debt-bondaged serfs? What should happen to the countries that just willingly allow themselves to fall into debt?